Forum:X (hologram) pages
Merge :This also covers Geordi La Forge (hologram), Jean-Luc Picard (hologram), Deanna Troi (hologram), William T. Riker (hologram), Beverly Crusher (hologram), Data (hologram), Benjamin Sisko (hologram), Paris (hologram), Tuvok (hologram), Harry Kim (hologram), Kes (hologram), Kathryn Janeway (hologram), Chakotay (hologram), Odo (hologram), Kira Nerys (hologram), Jadzia Dax (hologram), Guinan (hologram), Miles O'Brien (hologram), and any others I may have missed to also be merged with their respective pages. Do we really need these to be separate pages? The Kira (hologram) is one thing, but the others seems like we're going to far. Seska is the only character I known of to have a hologram that was seen after the actual character died, and that isn't two separate pages. - Archduk3:talk 14:38, September 2, 2009 (UTC) :Perhaps it should be. :) Anyway, I don't see a problem with these being seperate pages. These holograms appeared in episodes and performed some sort of function. Maybe there is a good reason to not have them, or to do something else with them, but I don't know of one yet.--31dot 22:14, September 2, 2009 (UTC) I don't see any reason why these can't just be a section on the respective character's page, as they are suppose to be their counterparts. Having them as separate pages just clutters up the top of the article with more disambiguation links and very few of these have enough information to be anything more then a list with brief explanations. - Archduk3:talk 15:07, September 3, 2009 (UTC) :I do agree about the disambig links; I was hesitant to put them in but I did so to draw attention to these articles, if nothing else. What about a single article with these holograms on it, maybe something called "Holograms of Enterprise Crew" or something like that. I'm not convinced that they should simply be merged with the relevant character- to me it would be like merging Shinzon with Jean-Luc Picard.--31dot 16:31, September 3, 2009 (UTC) "Holograms of Enterprise Crew" wouldn't work, as Sisko and other DS9/VOY holograms wouldn't be able to be listed. Something more ambiguous would be best. (I was actually going to use the doppelganger page to list "holographic duplicates" along with every other plot device that leads to "copies" of a character, if the merge issue is every decided on). - Archduk3:talk 12:25, September 4, 2009 (UTC) ::Why not look at this the other way around? First, there isn't barely any information on the page. Second, the list of incoming links is very short - for example, only Benjamin and Sisko link to that hologram article, and they are somewhat incorrect disambiguation pages to begin with. In other cases, the episode in which the hologram appeared is the only other incoming link. ::So, those two observations combined, what amount of information would really be lost if we just mentioned the existance of a holographic recreation on the character page? -- Cid Highwind 12:43, September 4, 2009 (UTC) RE:Cid - Are you talking about just Sisko's page, or all of them in general? There are still more holograms of characters that don't have pages yet, so if we were breaking it down by ship/station we would need three pages to cover this, instead of one. - Archduk3:talk 15:00, September 4, 2009 (UTC) ::I'm talking generally - if there's some "character-hologram" with so much information that an article can be filled, let's have an article. However, if the only information is "a holographic recreation of X has once been created", and about the only incoming link is from the character article X itself, then it would be far more sensible to just add that trivial information to the character article and be done with it. Creating list articles per ship would be the worst decision, I think, because it's neither here nor there. -- Cid Highwind 15:53, September 4, 2009 (UTC) I agree with you completely. - Archduk3:talk 16:15, September 4, 2009 (UTC) :To be clear, I was not proposing organizing such holograms by ship, I only suggested that as a name(and forgot about non-Enterprise characters ;) ) I agree that "trivial" information might not necessarily need its own article, but I don't think merging them with the character makes a lot of sense to me- it isn't relevant to Worf's character that somebody else created a hologram of him, for example. However, I have no alternative to suggest, so I would not stand it the way of such a merging.--31dot 18:53, September 4, 2009 (UTC) :::I believe that these holograms are separate entities from the real characters and should have separate articles. Is a holographic Sisko the same as a real human Sisko?. :::--Shamutto 20:12, September 17, 2009 (UTC) ::::But, as Cid Highwind said--there's a difference between a "character hologram" and just a simulation of a real person. Unless that simulation of the real person does/has something of note that's not just a brain-dead imitation of the original, then the article is rather superfluous and not needed. That is, things like Kira (hologram) and Seska's hologram merit their own articles, as do standalone holographic characters like Vic Fontaine and Flotter, but not the brain-dead knockoffs like Worf (hologram) from training simulations who did nothing but play through a predefined scenario as their doppelgangers. -Mdettweiler 02:19, September 18, 2009 (UTC) :::::Perhaps these Starfleet personnel holograms can be added to the lists of Starfleet personnel, although exactly where may not be abundantly clear. Mixing them with real officers by time may not make sense, but the by rank articles, say like for Starfleet commanders, where it currently lists real, illusionary, parallel/alternate, and "other" Commanders using a table with columns for episode citation and a note on the appearance(s) seems promising for holograms as well. - Intricated talk 21:05, November 15, 2009 (UTC) They should just be merged with Doppelgänger now, since that lists all of them, though it has been brought up that the holographic section of that page be moved elsewhere. - Archduk3:talk 02:44, November 16, 2009 (UTC) (Update: Changed the merge with to the Holographic duplicates page, which is where the holograms from Doppelgänger were moved to. I also added the Kira (hologram) to the merge list, since it is covered at the new page) - Archduk3:talk 20:31, December 8, 2009 (UTC) :I think that could work.--31dot 21:24, December 8, 2009 (UTC) ::::::Agree to merge. Individual pages for holograms are now made obsolete, due to holographic duplicate having the exact same information, but in a more convenient way. [[User:QuiGonJinn|'QuiGonJinn']]Talk 15:14, January 10, 2010 (UTC) ::I'd definitely prefer having information about holographic recreations of a character on the page about that character - merging them is better than nothing, but I think still not the most accessible way to store that information (see Talk:Holographic duplicate for further discussion). -- Cid Highwind 19:27, January 10, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Why not use both? We could create a section about holograms on a respective character's page and then link holograms of that character from the "holographic duplicates" page to that section. Something like Geordi La Forge. [[User:QuiGonJinn|'QuiGonJinn']]Talk 20:34, January 10, 2010 (UTC) ::Mostly, because having the same information in different places should be avoided - it's error-prone (if someone updates one article and forgets the other), and if the information already is on the character page (where it definitely should be - it's where most people are going to look, after all), there's even less to read the list article as well. Also, I'm still not exactly convinced what the purpose of that list article might be. Who is going to read through a huge list of one-sentence description regarding the existance of holographic recreations of people, and why? -- Cid Highwind 21:07, January 10, 2010 (UTC) :Who is going to look up USS Alka-Selsior? I don't think it's about who is going to look up what but about where things should be. Let's look at it this way- if I create a mindless hologram of you, should that be on a page about you? One doesn't have to do with the other. I agree that mindless copies should not have their own article, but I don't think that they should be combined with the respective character. A link on the page maybe in its own section(not at the top), but not a total merge.--31dot 21:29, January 10, 2010 (UTC) ::Well... if it is a hologram looking like me, sitting in front of a computer like me, editing MA like me, used by you for the sole purpose of displaying how it looks like if a specific person does what it normally does, and nothing else... then yes, I really believe that hologram should be a small note on the article about me, and not have its own one. Not although it is a mindless copy of me, but, in fact, because it is one. Do we want to have a separate article for a photograph of a character, or do we need an article photographic images to list them all? -- Cid Highwind 01:30, January 11, 2010 (UTC) :I don't think it's entirely accurate to equate a photo of someone with a functional hologram of someone. A photo of you is just that- a photo of you. A hologram of you is not you(even a mindless one), no matter how accurate a representation it might be. It would be one that is programmed to act like you, talk like you, look like you, etc., but it is not you. You might have a point if we were simply talking about a holographic recording of someone (as the attempted forgery in was purported to be) but in cases where a copy of someone was created independently to do independent things, that wouldn't apply.--31dot 01:56, January 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::Agreed. A recording of a person is a recording, whether it's on a VHS tape in video form or on an isolinear chip in holographic form--and since that's just replaying the actions of the real person, that would go on the person's article. But a simulation hologram is different--it may be programmed to act like a real counterpart, but it's still doing things that the original person may not have actually done or ever will do. That's the key difference. I would suggest that simulation holograms (regardless of whether they're programmed to behave like their templates) be listed on holographic duplicate, while recordings would only be mentioned on the character's page since, after all, the concept of a recording implies that the original actually did that action (or at least was purported to have done it, as in the case of ). -Mdettweiler 04:40, January 11, 2010 (UTC) I also agree that there is a difference between a simple holographic recording and a holographic duplicate, and that recordings should be on the characters page, but the difference IMO is that the person actually did it. That would leave Data's holographic Tasha Yar and the recording that Jack Crusher made for Wesley as recordings, while the holograms from "In the Pale Moonlight"; , and so forth as holographic duplicates, because their actions were programed instead of recorded. - 09:39, January 11, 2010 (UTC) ::The whole bunch of ENT holograms is supposedly depicting the NX-01 crew "doing what they really did, being like they really were" - they are "holographic photographs" with a little bit of interactivity tacked on after the fact. The Tanuga IV holograms are basically reenacted witness accounts - not "real characters". The various characters of Barclay's fantasy program are just that - subroutines of Barclay Program 15, using the likenesses of the Ent-D bridge crew. Similarly, there are many others that are really not "duplicates", but in fact unique characters just using the likeness of a real person (Duchamps for example). -- Cid Highwind 11:56, January 11, 2010 (UTC) I think we're getting a bit off topic here, since it seems we're disucssing the page Holographic duplicate now more than merging these. Since the consensus is that we don't need individual pages for this information, I say we merge these into holographic duplicate now and continue the discussion about that page there. - 12:35, January 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::No, we're on topic. The question is whether articles on individual holograms are necessary. Some don't agree with a merge, still. — Morder (talk) 12:54, January 11, 2010 (UTC) Consensus isn't everyone, but, excepting Shamutto and Intricated, everyone else is for a merge, even Cid said he would rather merge then into one page then the many they are now. I'm just pointing out if we're going to discuss the page holographic duplicate, let's do it there, since this (section) should be only about the purposed merge. - 13:11, January 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::And, it seems, 31dot. I'm all for a merge. The current discussion still is relevant to these articles in that people are trying to establish validity for them. As such, I don't think they should be merged yet - at least another day of discussion as long as new info is added to the discussion and not reiterations of previous statements. Once these are merged, I'm pretty sure, the discussion is over. :) — Morder (talk) 13:21, January 11, 2010 (UTC) :(edit conflict)Consensus seems to be in favor of a merge. The disagreement seems to be where to merge them- some advocate merging them with their respective characters(Cid) and others advocate merging them with holographic duplicate (me). :A reenacted witness account is still not a recording- just like a reenactment on the History Channel of the Civil War is not an actual recording of the Civil War. In such a case I would envision the H.D. page to list instances where a person was recreated.--31dot 13:24, January 11, 2010 (UTC) ::Yes, I, too, believe this discussion is on-topic. We might as well have this on the other talk page, I agree, but since my point is that the content of the suggested merge target might better be moved to other articles, I obviously disagree with moving more content to that article in the first place. At least while we're having an active discussion about it, there's no need to rush this. ::Regarding the "duplicates" list, let's get back to my core point - what is the information on that list, in exactly that form, going to be used for? What question does this list answer in a better way than smaller lists on the character article, or on articles about the whole program in question (I already mentioned "Barclay Program 15"), would? Using your example, wouldn't a page about "Civil War" have a section about eventual reenactments of that war, where this info would be more sensibly located than on a huge list of all possible reenactments of other wars, or even situations that are not a war? -- Cid Highwind 14:01, January 11, 2010 (UTC) The problem with just listing these recreations on the their holographic programs page is that a good number of those programs don't have names in canon (The Three Musketeers program?), so we shouldn't have pages for them; and a quick look at Holographic programs shows that that page needs work as well. I do agree with Cid, in part at least, that this information should be on the originals page, but with a link (and a bg note pointing out (main) characters that don't have any recreations IE: Jake Sisko). Listing these recreations only on their originals page has it's own problems, mainly that the holograms aren't their characters, much like the Warship Voyager isn't , and some of them are other characters, much like the Jupiter Station Diagnostic Program Alpha-11 is not Lewis Zimmerman, but is a recreation of him (or the programs based on the Doctor). As I said on the H.D.'s talk page, I do think the page needs work, and a helping of community input, but I do think that's it's the best way to go based on the limited information we have on these. - :::::::Why wouldn't unnamed holographic programs go under a page with the title "Unnamed holographic programs," like what happens to the unnamed characters? Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 19:23, January 11, 2010 (UTC) :Maybe I'm just not clear on the argument(It's possible. :) ) but it seems to me that the argument against moving the pages to Holographic duplicate is that no one will look it up and the information has little use or provides little insight. Using that reasoning we could delete a good chunk of this website. I thought the purpose here was to catalog things from the shows, no matter how trivial. Keep in mind we would not be having this discussion if someone hadn't gone to the trouble of creating these articles, so at least one person finds this information interesting. :I wouldn't expect to read full descriptions of reenactments of the Civil War on the page about the actual event. I would expect to be directed to the appropriate page, perhaps from a list of such reenactments. :I think it is reasonable to link to wherever the duplicates go from the character pages as Archduk suggests, I just think the full description shouldn't go there. This excludes recordings of people, which should be described on the charater's page(i.e. Jack Crusher).--31dot 01:00, January 12, 2010 (UTC) ::No, "no one will look it up, anyway" is not my argument. I even stated as much, on the duplicates talk page: "I'm not trying to dispute the usefulness of the information itself", under the header "Arrangement of information useful?". Instead, the basic question I pose is: "In what ways are people going to come across this bit of information by chance, and otherwise, what questions might bring people to search for a page that answers it?" ::And with that question in mind, especially the second part of it, I haven't found a sensible question yet that gets best answered by a full dump of every hologram in existence on one single page. ::The potential question "has character X been holographically recreated at some point?" will lead the reader to the character article first. The question "what character likenesses have been used in program Y?" will lead him to an article about that program (probably via the episode article). What question will lead him to holographic duplicates immediately, without a "detour" to one of the aforementioned articles? -- Cid Highwind 10:52, January 12, 2010 (UTC) :I apologize for mischaracterising you, I only thought that because above you said "Who is going to read through a huge list of one-sentence description regarding the existance of holographic recreations of people, and why?" but I now see what you meant. I just know that we catalog every minor real character, even those seen for only a few seconds and which do virtually nothing except stand there under the numerous "Unnamed" pages. We have pages about very small set details which are barely seen or even not seen(but we know exist) You could ask the same questions about those(and maybe you have, I don't know) :To me it just comes down to the fact that a recreation of someone is not that someone and should not totally be on the same page, even more so if the recreated person had nothing to do with the recreation. I don't see a compelling reason to merge articles about different things together. If your concern is that potential viewers will first be led to the character page, then we should leave the articles seperate with disambig links at the top, but that would really clutter up the page.--31dot 11:20, January 12, 2010 (UTC) Let me just say that nearly every time I'm looking for a holographic program I have to go through at least one other page, either Holographic programs, or the episode's/character's page, so I don't see why a direct connect is necessary. I thought that was why we build a web in the first place. That being said, I do see the point, but under that logic we should merge in all nicknames and aliases with there respected characters, since neither the article (former) or the category (latter) can answer similar questions either. I fail to see why a link from, say, Worf to H.D. is a problem, but I would rather support a merge to the characters page then have more disambigs. - 12:18, January 12, 2010 (UTC)